Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-83-03740 0 J-83-299(a) RESOLUTION NO. �0 -37'4r 1 A Rh SOLUTION AFFIRMING THE [IERITAGP CONSER- VATION BOARD'S ACTIONS IN 0FNYIti(• TPE. AFPEAL FROM TPE 1 )SUANCE CH A PC:kiSIT FOR rREF t�EMOVhL AND Fh;L,OCA'PION ON THti SITE OF THE PROPOSED CULMER GARDENS HOUSING SITE (FL5-75); AND 14AKING FINDINGS. WHEREAS, the Heritage Conservation Hoard at its meeting of March 14, 1983, Item No. 1, following an advertised hearing adopted Resolution 'No. HC-83-12, by a 7 to 1 vote, denying the appeal, as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the Appellant has taken an appeal from the Heritage Conservation Board's decision to the Citv Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable and in the best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to affirm the actions of the Heritage Conservation Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMM I.S.';10U OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY t)'r MI?414I, FLORIDA: section 1. The Heritage Conservation Board's decision to deny the appeal from the issuance of a tree removal and reloca- tion permit for the Culmer Gardens Housing Site (FL 5-75) located at approximately Northwest 4th Avenue, Northwest 5th Street, Northwest oth Avenue and Northwest bth Street, is hereby af- f irrr,ed . Section 2. It is hereby found that it is in the general welfare of the public that the trees giving rise to this appeal be removed. Accordingly, Permit No. 1050 authorizinq the sa,i,e is hereby sustained. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th day of May , 1983. Maurice A. Ferre 'EST: , ,.ti MAORICE A. FERRE, MAYOR RAL ' G. 011GIE CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: APPROV©ED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: ,.a V. i�► � � /-r&.4et 0 L E. MAXWELL7 JOSE R. GARCIA-PEDROSA 'ISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY CITY COA'liJiISSIQN M"AY3IM 1983 106 CITY C;1F MIAN�I, FLORIDA INTER (DFF!CE MEMORANDUM TO Howard V. Gary City Manager DATE April 1, 1983 FILE: SUBJECT. APPEAL OF APPEAL DENIED BY HERITAGE CONSERVATION BOARD OF TREE REMOVAL Q AND RELOCATION PERMIT OF CULMER GARDENS BOUNDED BY NW 4 & 6 AVENUES AND NW! F & 6 FROM urelio E. Perez-Lugones REFERENCES: STREETS Director Planning and Zoning Boards ENCLOSURES: COMMISSION AGENDA - APRIL 28, 1983 AdministratiQn epArtmelit PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS "It is recommended that a review be made of the appeal denied y�t-fie Heritage Conservation Board to revoke etree removal and re ocation permit issued for the proposed Culmer Gardens housing site (FL 5-75), which is bounded by PAW 4th Avenue, NW 5th Street, NW 6th Avenue and NW 6th Street." The Heritage Conservation Board, at its meeting of March 14, 1983, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution HC 83-12, denying an appeal of the issuance of tree removal and relocation Permit Number 1050 for the above site, by a vote of 7 to 1, with one abstention. A copy of Permit No. 1050, the notice of appeal, and the Heritage Conservation Board Fact Sheet and Resolution are included for your review. A RESOLUTION to provide for the above has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and submitted for the consideration of.the City Commission. GF:111 cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: AFFIRM THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT 0. i` 83-3'74 M •Y:+/�C.'� ".t•Y.j.a a. �;.J` i.3 • .•�; .. (•' �.1'.' ,I .. .f,d, x; ��_�':r.1.1:.i-.•. •r i.•' {.wit 1 ..-r.. r�!• .� .i' J.�.i•1 Y�t.�' 4 { — . ... _+!L` ..-�..-s•sK_*:.'�"�:'?C:`-�+N�.e�•+a;..•:y:...f.:.:✓'!rcri.,+iiAR:.doe.n':.:'-Lca�'r.w,aLa'wl:n,.:.t:,X••�cVAkFk�i7::++leer:,fAMJ�r+r�r..crsn�•e•+re;-r*>.,e.:>� v.+rac+e.Lrra,rk.•w:..,�+fir Howard V. Gary April 20, 1983 City Manager Appeal of Culmer Gardens Tree Removal Permit 1r ,J , • r� � / �� .��".!.�i'y Y%-Z Sel?gio Rodriguez, Director Planning Department Following is a summary of major events involving the Planning Department and/or Heritage Conservation Board and the issue of tree removal on the site of the proposed Culmer Gardens public housing project, bounded by NW 4th and 6th Avenues and Nil 5th and 6th Streets: 1. February 9, 1983 (approx. 11:00 AM) - Joyce Meyers, Heritage Conservation Officer (HCO), received a call from attorneys representing neighboring Southgate Villas,inquiring about whether a tree removal permit had been issued. 2. HCO immediately notified the Department of Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services, Zoning Inspection Division. 3. Approximately 1:00 PM same day - Zoning inspector went to site and issued a stop work order because there was no tree permit. Tree trimming had commenced, but no trees had been removed or destroyed at that time. 4. February 10, 1983 - HCO and Zoning•Inspector reviewed tree permit application and site plans with the contractor. Zon- ing Inspector went to the site with contractor to verify information on the plans. Permit #1050 was issued for tree removal and relocation. (Note: Tree removal permits are not effective for a period of 10 days following issuance.) 5. February 16, 1983 - First appeal filed on Permit #1050. Hearing scheduled for Heritage Conservation Board on February 28. 6. February 22, 1983 - Received Southgate Villas appeal on Permit #1050. HCO notified Phillip Davis, Jr. of Southgate Villas by telephone and letter that the appeal was deficient, and counseled same on how to properly file an appeal. 7. February 23, 1983 - Received withdrawal notice of first appeal. 8. February 25, 1983 - Received proper appeal from Southgate Villas. 9. February 28, 1983 - Heritage Conservation Board heard appeal from Southgate Villas, and then continued the public hearing Page 1 of 2 83--3'74 Howard V. Gary City Manager �-i Vie•.., •v��!r!s:^,b'!'r...ter'�'�7.:�'.'�.ts+�!�+hl�+bf:�7�i'i.:+f!i'4rtt+�i April 20, 1983 to a special meeting to allow for a group tour and inspection of the site. 10. March 14, 1983 - Heritage Conservation Board participated in an on -site inspection tour with the public present. Technical advice on tree conditions was provided by the City of Miami Parks Department landscape architects. The public hearing was continued at the City of Miami Administration Building immediately following the on -site inspection. The HC Board voted 7 to 1 to deny the appeal of Southgate Villas. 11. March 15, 1983 - Dade County requested authorization to continue construction work. The City of Miami Law Department determined that the Environmental Preservation Ordinance does not contain the power to delay construction work once the HC Board has ruled in favor of a project. On March 17, the HCO notified Dade County of this decision. 12. March 29, 1983 - Received appeals from Robert Taylor and Phillip Davis, Jr., on the Board decision. SR: JAM: dr Page 2 of 2 83-374 yPA�1t�::r;N.f.:...^+a1��a�'' �i��a a`':iK'"a^.';..'Y.w`k'rYi+tM�Ci�.^r.�..h..T�.:�.:.wyv`s aa+Wi•. •-... ems•.....-. •---a--•'.. .�.s �.�r�.•A�_�.a`�.... .. "�'�'. ".. FACT SHEET HERITAGE CONSERVATION BOARD February 28, 1983 LOCATION: Area bounded by NW 5th Street, NW 4th Avenue, W1 6th Street, and NTR 6th Avenue - site of proposed Culmer Gardens housing (F1 5-75). ' OWNER: Metropolitan Dade County Department of Housing and Urban Development APPLICANT: Phillip Davis, Esq. Southgate Villas Homeowners Association 409 NW 6th Street ZONING: R-4 ENVIRONMENTAL This site is not within an Environmental Preser- PRESERVATION vation District, but requires a tree removal DISTRICT: permit to be issued by the Department of Fire, Rescue, and Inspection Services. REQUEST: Appeal by applicant of decision of the Depart- ment of Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services to issue Permit #1050 for removal of 16 trees and relocation of 9 trees. BACKGROUND: On February 10, 1983 the Heritage Conservation Officer and the Department of Fire, Rescue and Inspection Services were notified by attorneys representing neighboring property owners that Ca construction work had begun on the subject site, possibly without the necessary tree removal permit. A zoning inspector went to the site and notified the contractor to stop work until a valid tree removal permit was obtained. Although some pruning had taken place, no trees were removed or destroyed. The contractor then sub- mitted an application for a tree removal permit; the plans were reviewed by the landscape inspec- tor and the Heritage Conservation Officer; and the permit was issued on February 10, 1983. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Affirm issuance of permit #1050. The proposed Housing and Urban Development plan calls for �—• all trees which can be reasonably moved and which are worthv of saving to be relocated. The trees to be destroved are fruit trees and trees in poor condition. Approximately 60 new trees will be planted on.the site. This proposal meets or exceeds the intent and standards for tree removal not in Environmental Preservation Districts. The applicant has shown no valid grounds for appealing this decision. 83--374 IN RE: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 1050 BEFORE THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION BOARD (HCB) NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION PURSUANT TO CITY CODE, SECTION 17, AN APPEAL IS TAKEN TO THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION FROM THE ORDER OF THE HCB ANNOUNCED AT ITS HEARING ON MARCH 14, 1983, AT 4:00 P.M. WHICH ORDER AFFIRMED THE GRANTING OF TREE PERMIT NO. 1050, AND REJECTED AN APPEAL TO THE H.C.B. The reasons for this Appeal are that the HCB departed from the law as set forth in Chapter 17 for permitting tree removal and departed from the undisputed facts as testified by two tree experts that removal or moving of the trees would result in destruc- tion of the trees. I CERTIFY that the original of this notice was filed with the City Manager, with copies to the City Clerk and the HCB, on March 1983. r / � .A �), Y•-/� � � 1 � it eJ PHILLIP S. DAVIS, F.sq. Appellant 409 N. W. 6th Street Miami, FLorida 3136 TELEPHONE: (305) 358-0907 c' w 5 J tV � rn C4 .� T N i1 rn P-3-3'74 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA HERITAGE CONSERVATION BOARD In re . TREE PERMIT NO. 1050 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION The undersigned gives notice that, as a citizen, he takes an appeal to the Miami City Commission from the order of the Heritage Conservation Board announced on March 14, 1983 at its 4:00 P.M. hearing which order rejected an appeal from the issuance of Tree Permit 1050 and affirmed the tree permit. The reasons for this appeal are that the Heritage Conser- vation Board departed from the essential requirements of the law and the facts that the tree removal and relocation would be damaging to the trees. CITIZEN - APPELLANT ­ I "� I certify that the original of this notice was served by hand delivery on the City Manager with a $25.00'check for the appeal and a copy was delivered to the City Clerk on t is the 29th day of March 1983. �IJA i / ! DAVID F. CERF, JR., Esquire..,, i Attorneyfor Appellant 2895 Biscayne Boulevard' 3¢3 Miami, Florida 33137 c w -� s Telephone(305)573-7416 a N Ca tart -o vj O -n T_ W c7 co rn S3-374 ... :. � _ JJ ,r:e ...ram. � .� � 7j':�.$'• ri:�fiZy�':-..�:;,�. .�: :�..'�'a r{.e-...-: Y:'.1�+:'s: a'.*a'�'�'�"'r"•"'^'"•til;rws.�:r..,.�,:.:✓.•r�r.!!iAratcCwi':'r�te�,iw.t+a.tlt+Iw�:.#?+N+�tO�i�X%iiN�' RESOLUTION HC-83-12 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL BY SOUTH - GATE VILLAS OF PERMIT NO. 1050 INVOLVING TREE REMOVAL AND RELOCTION ON THE SITE OF CULMER GARDENS, BOUNDED BY NW 4th AVENUE, NW 6th STREET, NW 6th AVENUE AND NW 5th STREET. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of March , 1983. ' 7-J HERITAGE CONS RVATION OFFICER CHAIRMAN u 83-374 .-.rt•..-gin•,.. �- ..•,-n._ .r•, .- .. - ., •V�:4•:ff�';��:;:.v}K�.'�n,.��".iial'1��✓�IljfiG.^:.i•vY^Vn�..�:a�:i.lw:ti' ... ...... ..� �t-•._ .-. -. .. .r� ., .. .... .. .. �" .. .... T C NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE February 187 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTER 17 MIAMI CITY CODE SECTION 17-7 (A) (3) The Southgate Villas Homeowners Association does hereby ap- peal the issuance of a permit to change, alter, and/or cut and trim trees which has been issued to the General Contractor of HUD Project 5-75. This project area is located in the City of Miami bordered by 6th Ave. to the west, 4th Ave. to the east, 6th Street to the north, and 5th Street to the south. Southgate Villas is located on 6th Street between 4th Ave. and 5th Ave.. I, Phillip Davis, as a resident of Southgate Ullas and an executive offi- cer of Southgate Villas Homeowners Association, along with the members of the Association, request a hearing in this appeal in order to contest the issuance of a permit allowing the cutting and/or trimming of trees in the aforementioned area of which is known as HUD Project 5-75. The grounds for this appeal are: 1) Prior to receiving a permit to cut or trim the trees in this area HUD via the General Contractor, had begun cutting, trimming, and removing trees in this area in violation of Section 17-7, and making them subject to the penal- ties under Section 17-15. 2) That the application for permit under Chapter 17 was made only after inquiry by Southgate Villas as to whether the General Contractor had proper permit. That the application for such permit did not reflect clearly what the General Contractor actually wanted to do with regard to the trees in this area. In essence, the application was vague. 3) That Building and Zoning in reviewing this vague application could not render a proper decision in the one day that it took to do so. _ 4) That Building and Zoning's review was merely a rubber stamp of a vague and unclear application. 5) That Building and Zoning in an effort to make proper review could ■ 83-3'74 .. '�. ...�•:> ..� )r ::«'ti•rd.:isi...:.-4�4:.:1:C�c'L+M+ax.1x!�6l'!AS'•o"G�tt,!?.ti+�.w. ;w;r.:b •Sa_:. -t7�t'.;In �P,:h:rvkJM%µ'�IriC.•w'. Page 2. have made a field check of the site and a referral of the application to other departments or agencies as necessary to determine any adverse effect upon the general public welfare, adjacent properties or any city services and facilities. 6) That Building and Zoning issued a permit on 2/10/83 and that prior to the expiration of the 10 day permit effective date the General Con- tractor commenced to cut and trim trees in violation of Section 17-7 (A) (6). 7) That HUD Project 5-75 is now presently being litigated in the United States District Court in and for the Southern District of Florida. (Southgate Villas Homeowners Association, et al., vs. Dade County Board of Com- missioners, et al., Case No. 82-1957-CIV-tom, M). And that, if HUD and its General Contractor were allowed to cut, trim, and remove trees in this area and then sub- sequently the ruling of the Federal Court was not in their favor, Project 5-75 would come to a halt, and the area would be significantly changed to the point that it would be impossible to bring it back to the status quo without undue cost to the city and county taxpayers. 8) That this area be designated as an Environmental Preservation District based on the area's economic, environmental, ecological importance to the welfare of the general public and the city. This area of the City of Miami is being developed by HUD contrary to economic, environmental, ecological reasons, important to the welfare of the general public for the following reasons: (a) The project will detract from the economic growth of Downtown Miami in that a development of this type will erode at the progressive develop- ment of the area which will include new facilities of trade and culture, such as, the new Museum and Park West Complex. (b) The project directly effects the environment in that it will seek to change an open area of fruit trees and land which is needed to be main- tained in an area which is already over -crowded with Multi -dwelling housing. (c) The project is contrary to the welfare of the general public in that it poses a potential and real threat to the safety of some 200 plus elder- ly citizens who reside directly across the street from the area, in that the net result of the project will be an additional concentration of lar income rental property in an area that has an over concentration of such housing already. (d) That the project will create a linkage of low income housing environment from the already existing Overtown impoverished area to the now exist- ing Little Havana impoverished area (See Miami Herald February 9, 1983) which will create a strip of development whose environmental conditions could be detrimental to the success of an otherwise sound project. (e) That the project seek ;to a and increase crime, due the aforementioned reasons, in an area wh re there is an already existing high crime rate. PH= , Esquire Attan)by for The Southgate Villas Haaeowners Association 409 -N.'•W. -tth' Street Miami, Florida 33136 TELEPIIO*T. : (305) 358-0907 83-3 74 P. 0 425A MY Q�-- NW 5th STREET tdOiautl fqev ft k TREES TO BE It... EXISTING TREES TREES TO BE 14FW TREES — 79 } r BOuterse Perez & F9bvegas architects planners. wI a**d w:.R W" Mr..(3W35%.tda I I - LJl)nv '. Hull. UIN.. A 10-41.1 1'/•.�( CTin4 Of Pt "0. 310". •,A.., IF, 33133 APPLICATION FOR ROOFING, SLAB, FENCE, DEMOLITION, AWNING, SIGN, SHEET METAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT Applicant shall complete the following: MC %�_c i':, %T N ;- e O PERMIT NUMBER —� �.� I (� .� O O o D DATE �; ` / ~) .' TO SL //V� C O ISSUED (_ i_' 3 m ;LAf;-F•R611ED ❑VIOLATION FEE � N v' ( OWNER =1 r ) TF3 CENSc � OWNER'S � � 1 1 •t U co � ADDRESS �I ` ���. _ i1��r�1.C�p�j ��Z B I (! 1 O CONTRACTOR `� )1I _� C,I��' `� - tA, ���V� rV -APPRO ALSt DATE �iJl: % �3 • 'CK- ►,- El\\ .�� • CZONING I _ CONTRACTOR'S =� I"'`1=• �� ADDRESS �� 1� 1y l�j FIRE BUILDING BUILDING ARCHITECT OR .� ��C `� ZONE_. OGROUP TYPE `NE L `- lj RUCTURAL ARCHITECT'S OR �I ADDRE Sf�_ lit �- `�� r LL Av� N� \ t,1 ❑ELECTRICAL PRESENT \ C a ; S' t ID PLUMBING BUILDING USE V DESCRIPTION 1 _ kl 1 ❑AECHANICAL C'NORK \\ �� � 0 �. }� � ❑ LANDSCAPE ❑STATE HOTEL PERMIT jY L l 1 understand that this avoitcation is subject to the Building Ordinance i and all other Ordinances of the City of Miami, Laws of the State of ❑ I Flor Ida and Rules ano/Regulations of the Buildlnq Division applicable thereto. A copy of aVaroved plans a specifications 'must be kept at building site during prpgress of the work. II employ r` Of labor are sub- )act to the or OV111OnS Of the Florida drkme 'S Comp ns tion Act. r QUALIFIER'OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED. �� '�.~ � 1r.� f!� SIGNATt ❑ELECTRICAL GATE: iJ PHONE/, 5 Ytl ; 1 ❑PLUMBING RE -INSPECTION FEE. ❑MECHANICAL ❑ TREE REMOVAL WITH THIS PERMIT: YES; NO❑' !/ ❑DUE ❑COLLECTED OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: ❑E.P.O. ❑E.P.R.B. INSPECTION INSPECTOR DATE COMMENTS ,•i gyp &J"GS 1LG 1J0R7- d; I 1O M M_VJ a.. � / COST i FEE i ROOFING SQ. TYPE ' i SLAB: SOFT. FENCE OR WALLS. CONST. HI LF , DEMOLITION- SQ.FT. HI L 1 l+ Tnis space revliti thE' liltin�icale Ine ourtdrrill n-,sb4r ce Show�np�tn! n,sa tance ISpm III" Mnas -and Olnrttu,loAryS`- -WSC. DEMOLITION- /,�i //.." �'E ` /i/ -� _.� �� a.- ,;� i ,n v AWNING CONST. �' �.+�. - .'SIZ COMMENTS F:7 S TYPE: / ELECTRICAL AES ff NO ❑ G SIZE: SOFT. SF ❑ OF ❑ !► �� e./ .�_ N CONSTRgCT10N;, �yi..��.,� �• -/ //� \ :,�� LANDSCAPING ' SHEET METAL. o C� 7/- PAINTING/SANDBLASTING, MISCELLANEOUS: CHECK +►: ii :'I✓�.`' - '[ ell,i� +�' - :�' �,•, ,jJOTAL If FOR SIGN INSPECTIONS CALL 350-75ES FCR OTHER INSPECTIOt.S CALL 579-E87.'' F ETj TION 4) O WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY PETITION THE CITE' AND COUN 1' C011vlISSI TO STOP THE BUILDING OF HUD PROJECT 575 W'r!ICF IS NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTION LOCATED IN AN AREA WHICH IS BOUNDED BY N.V. 6 try STREET TO THE NORTH, , N.W. 5TH STREET TO TiE SOUTH, N.W. 4TH AVENUE TO THE EAST AND N.W. 6TH AVENUE TO THE WEST. l%T ARE CONCERNED CITIZENS AGAINST LOW-INCOME HOUSING WHICH SHOULD NOT BE BUILT IN THIS AREA WHICH WE ARE ADJACENT TO BECAUSE VIE ARE HOMEOI%�NERS AND ELDERLY PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HIGH ELEMENT OF CRIME EXISTING IN THIS AREA AND WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENv'VIRON*1ENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS ALREADY ENOUGH LOW-INCOME HOUSING IN THIS AREA TO DATE. NA1ME ADDRESS PHONE 00 Lj 83-3'74 T_rTITI0'� WE THE UNDERSI,;::;E'D D 0 HEF,EE`." PETITION THE CITE' AND COUNTY CO'-21"ISSIONEF; TO STOF THE Bl'ILDINr OF' HUD PROJECT 575 WHICH IS NOW UNDER CONSTRUCTIOtN LOCATED IN AN ARE-. VH I CH IS BOUNDED BY N.W. 6 th STREET TO THE NORTH, N.W. 5TH STREET TU Tr-iE SOUTH, N.W. 4TH AVENUE TO THE EAST AND N.W. 6TH AVENUE TO THE VEST. t,TE ARE CONCERNED CITIZENS AGAINST LOW-INCOME HOUSING WHICH SHOULD NOT BE BUILT IN THIS AREA VTHICH WE ARE ADJACENT TO BECAUSE WE ARE HOMEM,TI�ERS AND ELDERLY PEOPLE WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HIGH ELE?.ENT OF CRIME EXISTING IN THIS AREA AND WE ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENV IRON ,ENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS ALREADY ENOUGH LOW-INCOME HOUSING II; THIS AREA TO DATE. INK LE ADDRESS 83-~3'74 P E THL �';DEt.SI:':;:_i� D� i:�T.t�== i'£TI T _O'; T"r.: CIT': r%';D C0 'NT1 CO'•T•'IS, 10NEF TO ST01 THE b,;i-DIN- 1C'- H'D FRO,1ECi 'v.-IF I CF IS NOS•.' DER '" CO�� T'STRUCT10.' t N Ci: I S 115 LADED EY I; . V. F t . STREET TO THE NORTi' i;.�. 5TI TRLrT TC�T:E S0�'Ti I;.�:. �Tf r.�'E:��% TO THE EAST ANDN.W. 6T'r: AVENUE TO TEFL W T. W ARE CO"CEF."EII CITII-ENS AGAINST LOW-INCO::E HOt'SIN,= VP,ICH SHOULD ti0T E,£ BUILT, IN THIS ARD% Wl-'ICH V:'E ARE ADJACENT TO BECAUSE k—, ARE HO'iEM%",;ERS AI;D ELDERLY PEOPLEL�'ri0 ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HIGH ELENEI;T OF CF.II•;E EXISTING; IN THIS AREA A';Ii v'S ARE ALSO CONCERNED AF•OUT THL EN-V IROi: •:ENT TO THE EXTENT THA.1 Tur r:I I C ALF:EAD".' E"OUGH LOV. - I i;CO'.:E H U S I N,- I I; Tip I S AREA TO DATE. ADDF,Ec"S � r FHONK